Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

Hon. W. A. Haaaan Opinion No. O-7198 County Attorney Re: Whether Trustees of Independent Pecos county Sohool District may lawfully permit Fort Stockton, Texas the use of public school bufldings for religious worship where such use does not interfere or oonflict with the use of such bulldings as Dear Sir: school property Your request for opinion upon the following stated question: “Have the Trustees of an Independent School District the power to permit any rellglous denomi- nation, Protestant or Catholic to use the public school builalng or buildings for religious worship.” has been received and carefully considered by this department, Section 88 Vol. 37, Texas Jurisprudence, pages 958 ana 959, read as follow*: “Use for Other Than School Purposes - BIPublic school property Is held in trust to be used for the beneftt of the chqldren of the com- munity or district in which the’ property exists. It Is so plainly and clearly Impressed with a trust in favor of the’ schools that It Is within the pro- teotlve claims of both the State and Federal Con- stitutions, and the Legislature is without power to devote such property to any other purpose or to the use of any other beneficiary. The laws of Texas by implication at least require that the exclus i ve ownership end control o ! school builalngs of a ais- trict shall be In the trustees thereof. ,And a con- tract entered Into between the trustees and a pri- vate individual or organization is .void when it contemplates that the d,lstrict shall surrender ex- clusive oontrol of a school building or that a building shall be erected for the jokt use and joint control of the district and another. Hon. w. A, Haaaen, page 2 “But the trustees may, authorize the use of school property for private purposes whfch do not conflict with Its use as a schoole Although they may net own or control the buildfng jointly with private interests, they may lease a portion of it In so far as the uses to which the prop- erty !s put wCI. not interfere or conflict with its USQ as school property. Thus the Supreme Court has held that the trustees may permit the use of buildings by ‘clubs and fraternal societies, musical organizat&ons Sunday-schools, etc., where such uses do no e interfere with their use for school purposes, Nor is there any abuse of discretion in the leasing, during vaaatfon of an unused school campus for a baseball per& such use being so restricted as not to perm%t of injury to or waste of the school property or in- terference with the conduct of the school. “In the absence of any provision of law to the contrary, it fs also discretfonary wfth the trustees to refuse the use of school property for other than school purposes, as for the purpose of holding primary eleetlons, Likewise, even though the statute provides that general elections shall be held fn schoolhouses ‘where ft is practfcable so to do, t the trustees in the exerc%se of their discretion may decline to allow school buflafngs to be used therefor and th.e courts, in the absence of any showing of a&e? will not disturb thefr act ion.” The case of Martin ve South San Antonlo Independent School District 27.5 SOW. 265 (Tex.Ci.v.App.) 277 S,W. 78 (Tex. Sup.Ct.) ho1d.s ?hat school trustees may permit the use of school buildings by clubs and fraternal societies, musfcal or- genizatgons Sundav s ho In, eta0 where such uses do not %nter- fere with thefr use-fzr zchzol purposes. Under the ~above Cfted authorities it is our opinion that school trustees, in their sound dfscreeion, may lawfully permit the use of public school buflafngs for religfous worship where such usa ~$11 not interfere with or conflict with the use of such buflafngs for schoo~l purposes, APPROVED APR 23, 1946 Very truly yours /s/ Cellos C. Ashley ,PlPTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS FIRST ASSISTANTATTORNEY Buy./‘s/ Wm. Jc Fanning GENERAL Wm. J* FannUg, Assistant APPROVED:OPINIONCOMMITTEE BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN WJF:BT:wb